dazed and confused, especially after the OSU and UGA games, But smarter for the experience. As with trading the stock market, I either get wiser or richer with every trade. I never get both.
There is definitely something more at work here then X's and O's, I think it's called money. While the smaller lower profile games don't seem to offer as ripe a target the bigger games with larger pools definitely are getting played. The common theme seems to be the better team, real or perceived, faltering at some point allowing the lesser team to cover. In the OSU game, the script was OSU faltering in 4th Q, for UGA it was lay-down from the start. then try to come back from the big hole. With no chance to cover.
Setting the number for OSU game at less than -7 set up the game as it unfolded. Setting the UGA number at -12 created a totally different setup. With Wash at +5 there was a chance to close to that number and not be too obvious. At -12 UGA had no chance to close that number.
With Clemson at +6 it leaves open the model we saw in the OSU game. Bama jumps out to a nice lead by halftime then Clemson closes to cover the spread but lose the game or actually win the game. I'd expect a ton of cash sitting on the Bama ML so maybe Clemson pulls off the win on the last play of the game.
At -6 I don't see the model of Clemson jumping out to a big lead like Texas vs UGA, with Bama closing to cover or win the game on the last play.
I think Clemson closes the spread +6 and might even win the game if enough money is on Bama ML.
What do you guys think?
BOL
There is definitely something more at work here then X's and O's, I think it's called money. While the smaller lower profile games don't seem to offer as ripe a target the bigger games with larger pools definitely are getting played. The common theme seems to be the better team, real or perceived, faltering at some point allowing the lesser team to cover. In the OSU game, the script was OSU faltering in 4th Q, for UGA it was lay-down from the start. then try to come back from the big hole. With no chance to cover.
Setting the number for OSU game at less than -7 set up the game as it unfolded. Setting the UGA number at -12 created a totally different setup. With Wash at +5 there was a chance to close to that number and not be too obvious. At -12 UGA had no chance to close that number.
With Clemson at +6 it leaves open the model we saw in the OSU game. Bama jumps out to a nice lead by halftime then Clemson closes to cover the spread but lose the game or actually win the game. I'd expect a ton of cash sitting on the Bama ML so maybe Clemson pulls off the win on the last play of the game.
At -6 I don't see the model of Clemson jumping out to a big lead like Texas vs UGA, with Bama closing to cover or win the game on the last play.
I think Clemson closes the spread +6 and might even win the game if enough money is on Bama ML.
What do you guys think?
BOL